ZHOU JIANMEI v. CHEUNG MOON HOI AND ANOTHER

CACV 168/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 168 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM LDPD 1549 OF 2012)

________________________

________________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  By an order dated 27 May 2014, Master Leong made the following order in respect of an appeal to the Court of Appeal by the respondents (appellants) against 3 decisions of the Lands Tribunal (“Order”) :

1. 日期為2011年4月2日的租約須加入上訴文件冊內，並列為第21號項目；

2. 申請人(答辯人)須詳閱答辯人(上訴人)的上訴文件冊目錄，以考慮是否同意其中的項目及要否加入其他文件；及

3. 今天聆訊的訟費歸於上訴案中。

2.  The second-named respondent (“Ms Yung”) is dissatisfied with the costs order made by the learned Master (para 3 of the Order) and appeals against the same.

3.  First and foremost, the Order is administrative in nature and by which the court sought to assist the parties, both of whom were and are unrepresented, to settle the contents of the appeal bundle(s).

4.  In an affirmation of Ms Yung filed on 10 June 2014, she sought to set out the premises of her appeal.  In short, Ms Yung’s complaint is that the court was excessively “kind” to applicant (“Ms Zhou”) when she had been given ample opportunity to prepare for the hearing on 27 May 2014 (“Hearing”).  Ms Zhou had failed to do so, and despite the assistance of the court, the matter (contents of the appeal bundle) was not resolved at the same.  Ms Yung says that her time for attending the Hearing (3 hrs) had been wasted. 

5.  I should say at the outset that it is trite law that for the purpose of appealing against a costs order made by a Master, it is incumbent on the appellant to demonstrate that the order is unreasonable or that the Master had erred in law: see Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2014, vol 1, rubric 58/1/6. 

6.  It is lamentable that so much time and energy have been spent on a simple matter.  However, Ms Yung’s evidence shows that Ms Zhou had real difficulty in understanding the exercise in question.  Whilst I might have been more exacting with Ms Zhou and pressed for the settlement of the appeal bundle at the Hearing, it may be unfair to judge on paper whether the course taken at the Hearing is or is not reasonable. Ms Yung’s submission that Ms Zhou had repeatedly or deliberately wasted the court’s time is not made out on the evidence.

7.  I am unable to say that the costs order is unreasonable.  Nor am I satisfied that there is an error of law made by the learned Master in making that order. 

8.  In the premises, this appeal must be dismissed with costs to Ms Zhou.